No reason justifies disbelief.

[The Grand Nudger]

That -where- we do science, not what science is based on.  Science is based on strictly regimented empirical observation.  Not a place of observation.  A being "outside of the framework", to borrow the religious nutters favorite fantasy, could do science.

That's fine.  Let's specify-- I'm talking about human science, not the science of magical space monkeys in another dimension.

No such thing.  Science is a method, not a specific user.

Science does not, in fact, answer the questions I claim it's incapable of addressing.  If it does, then this thread can end with a link.  Go ahead and provide it.

It answers "why" questions routinely, and -is- the tool we use to answer questions of cosmogony.  

Out of your gourd.

Not that it matters, since no amount of saying batshit things about science..or even pointing out things it doesn't answer... will ever establish the validity of the metaphysical or immaterial. Not how that works.

[Nay_Sayer]

Punctuation is so important.

No, reason justifies disbelief.

See, makes so much more sense.

Well no. You're going at this the wrong way.

See what you're supposed to do is harshly react to Catheter's troll....erm totally serious conversation starter and then continue for infinity pages while they smile at all the fish trying to swim out of the tank.

Now onto the prime mover subject; Of course there was, FSM bestowed upon me the very first prime mover they ever created; Optimus Prime mover, It's right in his name.

[Belacqua]

Well, considering the hubris with which you condemn atheists for not being persuaded by them

Please quote to me the post in which I condemn atheists for not being persuaded. I don't believe I have done that. How could I when I am not sure about them either? 

I think you've been imagining judgements which I haven't made.

No. That’s not what I asked. You asserted that empirical data could not be used to investigate god claims.  Yet, most logical arguments for god rely on premises involving empirical observations about the universe. So...? Lol

What is this reliable, alternative method to science, of investigating god-claims, and how you know it’s reliable?

Traditionally, philosophers use logic based on premises that we are likely to agree on. I'm not sure if it's reliable or not. You seem to be sure it's not a reliable.

See above. Please and thank you.  Why are you scared of stating your belief?  You realize it’s obvious to everyone, right?

It appears that some things appear obvious to people which aren't in fact true. If people could calm down a little bit with their accusations we might be able to understand each other better. 

Maybe it would help if I went back to bare-bones epistemology. This is what I believe:

~ Sense impressions in themselves have no meaning. 

~ When we get a sense impression, we interpret it in the mind. Anything of which we are aware has been interpreted already. 

~ The mind has structures through which it interprets sense impressions. These can be pretty elaborate. It appears that there are innate structures (e.g. the Kantian categories) which guide our interpretations. Beyond those, there is memory, association, and any number of learned categorizations, theories, assumptions, etc. (The extent to which these structures differ among different ages and cultures is an interesting question, but not of first importance here.) Usually the interpretation happens so quickly that we're not aware of it. 

~ If we get a sense impression of something that isn't immediately familiar to us, we use our interpretive structures to think about what it is. To work out where it fits into our familiar world, we can fit that impression into known structures, and we can use logic to extrapolate about it. 

~ If we want to know more about familiar things than our interpretive structure currently gives us, we can fit that familiar thing into existing structures, and use logic to extrapolate, to propose further knowledge.  

~ Some of these propositions will be testable through further sense-experience, which is itself interpreted through our theories and structures. This is science.

~ Some of the propositions could be interpreted through theory and logic in ways which aren't testable through further sense-experience. In such cases, we just have to use logic, and the lack of empirical testing may mean we can never be sure. This is metaphysics. 

There is no mysterious third way of knowing the world, as your question seems to imply. I have never said there was anything like that. 

This is what I believe.

---

None of science's successes in understanding features IN and OF the framework of the Universe lead logically to the idea that science can answer questions which transcend it-- for example, why such a framework exists at all.

Well said.

[bennyboy]

That's fine.  Let's specify-- I'm talking about human science, not the science of magical space monkeys in another dimension.

No such thing.  Science is a method, not a specific user.

Yeah, it's a method which depends on material observations taken within a particular framework.

Science does not, in fact, answer the questions I claim it's incapable of addressing.  If it does, then this thread can end with a link.  Go ahead and provide it.

It answers "why" questions routinely, and -is- the tool we use to answer questions of cosmogony.  

Really? It's the tool we use to answer questions of cosmogony? Great news. Go ahead and tell me why science says the cosmos exists. *holds breath*

Out of your gourd.

Not that it matters, since no amount of saying batshit things about science..or even pointing out things it doesn't answer... will ever establish the validity of the metaphysical or immaterial.  Not how that works.

That's nice. Potatoes vary in size. And please-- stop talking about my mother's socks!

[Deesse23]

An atom of a radiactive isotope decays into two atoms of a lesser element. It has definitely changed
Is it caused by something?

Yeah, everybody knows this. 

That's why I said, just below the part you quote, that these days many people don't accept the second premise.

I didnt ask you what other people accept or not.
I was asking about your opinion.

You stated: "things change" and "change has a reason". You seem to accept this proposition, right?
I brought forward radioactive decay and asked you if you have any idea for the reason of decay of an individual nucleus. If you accept the premises of the argument you bring forward, then i am sure you have an idea of how and what causes radioactive decay. If you dont, then i am wondering how you accept claims of something fundamental about reality while having examples of something that does not support this claim at all.

Its simple logic, which you seem love so much.

[Belacqua]

You stated: "things change" and "change has a reason". You seem to accept this proposition, right?

Here is what I said: 

For example, Aristotle's whole argument for a First Mover begins from two premises: 

1) things change, and 
2) change is caused by something. 

Those seemed self-evident to people for a long time. The rest of the argument pretty much goes from there, without the need for more premises. 

I understand that people now tend to think the second premise is not believable. Maybe so. 

Note that I am describing Aristotle's argument. Note that it doesn't say I find the argument persuasive. 

I was giving an example of how metaphysical arguments can begin with what appear to be self-evident premises. 

I brought forward radioactive decay and asked you if you have any idea for the reason of decay of an individual nucleus. If you accept the premises of the argument you bring forward, then i am sure you have an idea of how and what causes radioactive decay. If you dont, then i am wondering how you accept claims of something fundamental about reality while having examples of something that does not support this claim at all.

I make no claims concerning radioactive decay or causation. You have misread me. 

Its simple logic, which you seem love so much.

I also like it when people read what I say and not what I didn't say.

[Deesse23]

You stated: "things change" and "change has a reason". You seem to accept this proposition, right?

Here is what I said: 

For example, Aristotle's whole argument for a First Mover begins from two premises: 

1) things change, and 
2) change is caused by something. 

Those seemed self-evident to people for a long time. The rest of the argument pretty much goes from there, without the need for more premises. 

I understand that people now tend to think the second premise is not believable. Maybe so. 

Note that I am describing Aristotle's argument. Note that it doesn't say I find the argument persuasive. 

I was giving an example of how metaphysical arguments can begin with what appear to be self-evident premises. 

I brought forward radioactive decay and asked you if you have any idea for the reason of decay of an individual nucleus. If you accept the premises of the argument you bring forward, then i am sure you have an idea of how and what causes radioactive decay. If you dont, then i am wondering how you accept claims of something fundamental about reality while having examples of something that does not support this claim at all.

I make no claims concerning radioactive decay or causation. You have misread me. 

Its simple logic, which you seem love so much.

I also like it when people read what I say and not what I didn't say.

I havent claimed that you have claimed anything about radioactive decay. I, too, like it when people read what I say and not what I didn't say. Stop applying double standards. You seem to think much better of yourself than that lame attempt of evading, dont you?
I have asked you if you know (or have any idea of) what causes radioactive decay of individual nuclei.

You and i we both know what happens here, and everybody else who can read too:
You are critcizing people for holding their positions, then posit other positions which you finally admit you dont hold at all. Then you criticize people for not accepting certain positions (like deism/theism) while admitting to not accepting positions you bring to the table yourself.

As has been said already, you certainly are very much impressed by yourself.
You bring many positions to the table of which you seem to hold none, after thorough questioning. You are a self centered weasel.

[Belacqua]

I have asked you if you know (or have any idea of) what causes radioactive decay of individual nuclei.

No I don't know what causes radioactive decay etc. Does anyone?

Isn't this more suitable for a science forum? 

You and i we both know what happens here, and everybody else who can read too: 
You are critcizing people for holding their positions, then posit other positions which you finally admit you dont hold at all. 

What position exactly have I criticized someone for holding? Please be specific. A quote from the actual post would be helpful.

I have been arguing in favor of the position that atheists have beliefs, and that these beliefs are intrinsic to an adult atheist's atheism. 

What else? 

Then you criticize people for not accepting certain positions (like deism/theism) while admitting to not accepting positions you bring to the table yourself.

Please quote back to me the post where I criticized someone for not accepting deism or theism. In fact I haven't done that. 

What position have I brought to the table -- as one for which I argue, not one I cite as an example -- which I have then "admitted" not accepting? Again, quotes would be helpful.

As has been said already, you certainly are very much impressed by yourself. 

You bring many positions to the table of which you seem to hold none, after thorough questioning. You are a self centered weasel.

Always nice to hear from a fan. 

[Abaddon_ire]

You are a self centered weasel.

Yes, I spotted this very early on. He is so impressed at his own cleverness that he can't believe nobody else sees it.

[Deesse23]

You are a self centered weasel.

Yes, I spotted this very early on. He is so impressed at his own cleverness that he can't believe nobody else sees it.

I dont mind people thinking they are smart. I fact i know a lot of smart people (and no, not in a fake-humility-Belaqua-way). I dont even like a lot of them, but i can respect them for their cleverness. And a few i have to admit are entitled to their ego sometimes, because of how smart they are. Most of them also dont run around and try to make everyone else know how smart they are, like Belaqua. Thats (for me) one criterion to differentiate between really smart people and the wannabees, like B..

Belaqua is someone who wants everyone else to know how smart he is, by dissecting their views and taking them down. However he is too intellectually a coward to commit to own views (bar nonfalifiable ones or ones that are detailed enough to be dissected. He is "playing it safe"). He always hides behind ideas other people have originated, only to distance himself from thosw very ideas once those views are disected.

ohhh....and he is evasive as fuck. Or have i missed his answer to what other method than the scientific one he likes to apply? Bad news for LFC, he will never answer. Before he is going to honestly answer this question you will be able to pin jelly to a wall.


He is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.